User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

BKFIP

Tony, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moaia/Archive (re edits to remove "Common" at Tourette syndrome). Kijatta did it, Moaia did it, and a new editor is back with same.[1] [2] Does this necessitate a new SPI, or is it a DUCK situation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a remarkable reaction to a common-sense edit. Not using unquantified relative terms is just basic good writing. If you find it suspicious when someone is able to write well, it probably doesn't say much for your own writing abilities. Eplee (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked. Tony, if when you're next around, you can always run a check if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Bbb23. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you (and especially to Bbb23 for monitoring my talk page while I'm not really here .) I blocked another account related to the one above as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

How much do you pay Bbb23 to wikisit your talk page while you're away? He's been billing me $20 bucks USD per hour, insisting it's the going rate, but that seems a little steep to me. I've been considering other options, but he's so efficient, speedy and courteous it's hard to move on!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Common is common

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moaia/Archive

Talk:Tourette_syndrome/Archive_11#Common

Eplee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For the lead purposes, common is common; explained in the body of the article. [3] Also @Bbb23 and Drmies:; can I just start reverting on sight, and pinging one of you? Suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. You don't need to ping anyone--if you feel the need to explain, you can just say "rv sock" or something like that. And sometimes they'll come back and revert, and then we block that account immediately, and then they get all righteous and stuff, and then some of us feel bad for a bit, but a bit less each time... Drmies (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Mies: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23, Ponyo, Sandy--what about these? [5], [6], [7]? OK, I blocked the first two--the last I'm not yet 100% sure about. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If the technical data is a good match, I'd block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I dunno; I suppose I should start paying more attention to the big picture, since I seem to be a perennial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The last account (Counturnameten) is  Confirmed to the sock you blocked, Drmies. Now blocked as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

So, what is going on now at Talk:Tourette syndrome? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. BKF's IPs are located very differently, and these edits are different as well. Ponyo, thanks--the technical data were clear but you never know, so I appreciate the second opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion...

...on whether blocking 2600:1009:B04F:7647:D563:D752:DB2B:604/32 is too big. If you check you'll see why I'm tempted to do so. If you think this is feasible, please go for it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't block it. Pretty busy and probably has a few educational institutions on it given that it's Verizon Business. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Help to neutralise the article

"Tigers are ferocious! Lions are ferocious! But which one is better? There's only one way to find out .... FIGHT!

Hello there! “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Now in the ‘Tiger versus Lion’ article on wiki, a lot of accounts for the tiger killing lion have been added by a user named BritishTiger, and he also removed some accounts of the lion killing tiger without any explanation. That “In captivity” section in ‘Observed fights’ is completely vandalised. Some unreliable accounts are there too, please help mate! KejuFuru (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi KejuFuru, so for starters, as a few talk page watchers know, I think that Tiger versus lion is the single worst article on the English Wikipedia and that it should be deleted outright as being a WP:NOT violation. That being said, I don't really see this as a neutrality problem, but rather that the sourcing isn't up to Wikipedia's standards. I'm perfectly happy to help remove crap sourcing, which will ideally make the article sound more neutral to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"I think that Tiger versus lion is the single worst article on the English Wikipedia" ... and it's up against some stiff competition Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, do you have an opinion on who would win in a fight? We can add it to the article and reference it to your diff here if you want :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with you! Look at this account in the ‘Observed fights: in captivity“ section for example, “In 1924 a tiger owned by Mabel Stark killed 2 lions and 2 tigers.” This is crap sourcing, and there are so many accounts like this. Also the user who added this (BritishTiger) removed some reliable accounts from the section without any explanation in the edit summary. He even got blocked for it earlier but he didn’t learn. I’ll give you more accounts like this when I get some time, till then please remove the account I mentioned and maybe remove some other ones you find as unreliable or badly sourced. Thanks for understanding! KejuFuru (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Block

I had this user's talkpage on my watchlist after having reported them to ANEW a few months ago. Am I correct in guessing this is a BKFIP-related block? Grandpallama (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

User revealing personal information

Hi Tony! I hope you are doing well. I just had a quick question regarding a user revealing their personal email account in a talk page thread (specifically here). What should I do if I notice a user do this under such circumstances? Is contacting an administrator to get the information wiped as soon as possible the proper course of action? If so, is there a proper noticeboard for such things? Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Tyrone Madera, I have redacted the email address and suppressed the relevant diffs. Generally speaking, the best thing to do in a situation like this is to request oversight per the instructions at WP:RFO. – bradv^🍁 17:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bradv: Thank you! I'm sure that user will come to appreciate random people online not having access to their IP address and email. I will try to remember RFO if such a situation arrises again. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 TB. MarnetteD|Talk 02:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)

Tony,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, TonyBallioni! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Checkuser statistics

Dear Tony,

You've always been a hero for me at SPI. I can't overstate how much I appreciate the hard work you do there, a thankless task it often seems. And so I hate to bother you on the holidays, but I've got a question to ask about something that's really been bugging me lately:

Are there any formally compiled statistics available on the number of SPI cases that are filed, yearly?

I haven't been able to find anything on Wikipedia. I've searched the web but could only find secondary sources that give uncited figures for certain years. For example, a quote from Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection on Wikipedia":

"Sockpuppets are a prevalent problem in Wikipedia, there were close to 2,700 unique suspected cases reported in 2012. "

This is helpful, but I can't find any facts on the number of sockpuppets investigated/confirmed for 2014, 2018, or 2020, etc. Are stats like this even formally collected and disseminated?

If so, I would greatly appreciate knowing where to find them. If not, I am deeply troubled that Wikipedia doesn't keep up-to-date statistics about how many cases are processed every year, given the apparent extent of the problem. You deserve better than that for your hard work.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you have a great new year.

P.S.: I am aware of this SPI archive, but it dates back to the 2000s and seems inactive, and not very quantitative. To clarify, I'm looking for more recent figures, rather than a list of cases. Hunan201p (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone who is better at technology than me could probably do an API search for block logs including {{checkuserblock-account}} and "sock"; "Long-term abuse"; "Sockpuppetry"; "LTA" by year. Wouldn't be perfect, but could get you an idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:AN#Close review at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals, please

Nicely done, thanks. Restores my faith. A bit. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Tony!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello TonyBallioni, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Discretionary sanction

These have failed in two dimensions. First, our articles are a mess and have been for a long time. We are losing to organized nationalist manipulation. Second, good editors like Ealdgyth have been driven away out of frustration. ArbCom need to step in, identify the worst offenders, and ban them. AE can clean up the rest once the tag teaming is disabled. I’m commenting here because I’ve reached my word limit. Maybe I’ll change your mind but it’s okay if you don’t agree. Thank you for reading. Jehochman ^Talk 03:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, WHICH articles are you referring to? WHO are these “organized nationalists” who are doing some kind of “manipulation”? Name names. Provide diffs. Give titles. Otherwise, stop going around and spreading hate and misinformation across Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 03:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please reread my statement. I’ve tried to make it clearer. I don’t know exactly who’s responsible for the poor editing. I know our articles have been borked, and I know good editors have been driven away by tendetious editing. Do you know? Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve reread. If you know “our articles have been borked” then you should be able to name them. If you know that “we” are “losing to organized nationalist manipulation” then you should be able to name who exactly is responsible. Stop evading the question. Or just stop with this fear-mongering campaign where you’re trying to whip up a mob and some false moral panic by making vague allusions to some phantom threat from some nefarious unspecified “other”. I’m honestly getting frightened by your tactics here. Volunteer Marek 04:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I came here to speak with Tony, not to feed the sealions. Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats not what sealioning means. The request is simple and straight forward. If you’re gonna make accusations and talk smack you should at least have the courage not to hide behind vague innuendo. And backing up your accusations is actually *required* on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I came here to speak with Tony, not you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Right. So you actually CANT name a single article that is supposedly “borked” or “has been manipulated”. You actually CANT or WONT name a single editor that you think is responsible for this. Just the standard create-fear-with-vague-accusations-about-scary-others tactic. And you know damn well why I’m asking you to stop doing this. Volunteer Marek 04:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting my attempts to speak with Tony about a different topic. I did not come here to speak with you. Jehochman ^Talk 05:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• I was involved as an admin in this area for a while, and while I didn't get involved with content intentionally, I'm aware of the problems that are there. If you want my oversimplified version of why it is so hard to admin, it can be summed up as the Icewhiz problem. I do not want to go into details about this because of how justifiably sensitive it is for many people, but basically you have one properly foundation banned editor who was so toxic that the spirit of distrust that he has sowed into the topic area has made it so that anyone who edits in it is suspicious of one another—one side thinks the other are on the same team as a globally banned sockmaster, and the other thinks the other side is paranoid. That is not an atmosphere where anything can possibly be accomplished, even if people of goodwill exist who want to work through the content issues. The Icewhiz problem has also made it so there are admin(s) who are unwilling to work in the area.
  ArbCom has already done literally all it can do with regards to that problem; and there are individual arbs who are willing to work in the area as functionaries where others have stopped working because of how difficult it is. That being said, I don't have any confidence a full case would be able to work out what was (a) less than ideal but understandable behaviour given what some editors in this area have experienced and/or (b) what was justifiable frustration from people who are here in good faith but being treated like they aren't.
  While I'm aware there are other issues, there is so much noise created by those two that a case wouldn't solve anything. The solution to that is to liberally use DS to give people who are acting up a break from the process area to see if it lets off some of the steam so that if a case is needed, it won't spend the majority of its time dealing with the problems I listed above, which I do not think a case will solve. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the extra color. It’s helpful. I’ve seen past instances where misbehavior was subtle and was difficult to document at AE with its formulaic reporting template that assumes there exist a few obvious diffs. Anyhow, this is all going to be exposed by the press. It would be better if we fix it ourselves. I feel bad for Wikipedia that we have become so bureaucratic and timid. Jehochman ^Talk 09:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman - I’m sorry, but I have to renew my question again, initially asked here [8]. You stated yet again above -->.. this is all going to be exposed by the press".

• Please answer, what you mean by that and how do you know about this?

Thank you - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The press is aware of the issue and they are not going to let go of it. It is a matter of public interest and is likely to receive future coverage. We should do what's best for our readers and improve the quality of the articles. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

People get nervous when you talk about that because discussion of the press off-wiki by Icewhiz in this context is a trend, and he previously disclosed on his user page that he had media contacts. I don't think there's any coordination or anything going on, but the use of the spectre of the press to intimidate people is one of his tactics. There certainly are justifiable stories to write about Wikipedia and criticize it. But this is an area where people are extremely sensitive. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman So that’s just your speculation, correct? Icewhiz never told you that a new article will appear in Haaretz in the coming days/weeks. He never told you that, correct? Please verify. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Jehochman - you do realize that if there is indeed a new attack article published somewhere by Icewhiz or with Icewhiz input soon, then your statements such as above are going to be hard evidence that you had foreknowledge of these harassment tactics and that right now at this moment you were WP:PROXYing for an indef banned user, right? To me that would appear to be a grounds for an indef ban by itself for you, admin tools or no. So I suggest you cut it out with the ominous threats, think about whether you really want to be doing this, disclose whatever info you're privy to, and hope that there actually ISN'T anymore external attacks on Wikipedia editors by Icewhiz and friends in outside media. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There has been no attack article and the rest of your comment is also false. Please stop irking Tony by talking to me here. Use the request for arbitration page, or else my talk page. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

User:JehochmanIn particular, what is really disturbing about your comments Jehochman, is that these ominous threats like “all going to be exposed by the press” resemble very closely the same kind of ominous threats made by a just-banned sock puppet of an indef’d user and one of Icewhiz’s buddies/partners-in-harassment

[9], where they write “it reportedly is gonna make it to headlines again. Quite soon, some say.” This same banned user also had foreknowledge of the Haaretz Benjakob article (they were gloating about it on Wikipediocracy before it even came out).

At this point I’m still willing to believe that you just got caught up in something you weren’t quite familiar with and were told some stuff that isn’t true and that you’re acting in good faith here. But this willingness is running very thin. Seriously, this may be a good time to disclose exactly what is you’re referring to and where you got the info.

(ec) I’m sure Tony can speak for himself, and I want it on record that you were here making these… “predictions”, which, if something does happen, you’re gonna have to explain how you knew. Volunteer Marek 18:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained all of this to ArbCom via private email. They should have full information, assuming my message was shared. I am definitely not trying to put any Wikipedia editor in difficulties. Quite the opposite. Please don't infer a threat because there is none. I just want the articles to be fixed, and for the former good faith editors of these articles to feel secure in returning to work on them. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not really a subject I feel comfortable talking on because of all of the real life impact this topic area has had on editors. VM and GCB are inferring threats because throwing up the spectre of the media to intimidate people is a tactic Icewhiz has used in the past, and he is self-revealed to have had made appearances in media outlets before. It makes people nervous when it keeps being repeated because someone who is associated with a lot of real life pain would frequently talk in a similar way. I don't think anyone is saying you're collaborating or anything, but this is a topic where people walk on eggshells in part because of the media concern. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I will use maximum caution. Thank you for explaining. Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not native English speaker but from what I read they just read/viewed those sources. I don't imagine how Israeli will appear on Hezbollah run TV Station Shrike (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Heh, I've always read "On it" to mean "appeared on X." In US English, "Bob was on CNN" means "was a part of the broadcast." Funny language we have. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA2021 close grammar nitpick

Hi, hope you're having a nice holiday season. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem to me that the first sentence in the bulleted list at the AN RFA2021 close might need extra punctuation somewhere. Perhaps a period after the bold part? Great close otherwise. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia closes are a bit weird on how to apply grammar because its not really clear if the bolded bullet is part of the sentence by our normal convention (I apparently treated it as such, though.) Anyway, changed out a comma for a semi-colon, which should fix any grammar/punctuation issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Walter Gorlitz

Apologies if I'm going about this the wrong way. I have limited experience with edit warring. I saw that you have dealt with Walter Gorlitz's edit warring in the past, and thought I should let you know that he is at it again on Steve Terreberry. He reverted the same two associated acts three times on 29 and 30 December.[10] I also see an uncivil exchange between he and the other editor on their respective talk pages. Instant Comma (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

WLN?

I'm going to guess that what you were trying to fix was the "there is an RFA" banner? There is a bot that updates the count for that, sometimes it lags a bit. If there is something else broken please let me know! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

xaosflux, you got it. As I'm sure you're aware, I don't usually do these things and it was there for a while after I had closed the last RfA. Thought it might be something I needed to fix. Glad to know a bot does it... TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Good deal, it is powered from the counter on this page: User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe not, it may have been fixed to not use that - been a while since I dug in! — xaosflux ^Talk 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's the bot that's dead (contribs), so editors have been updating the counter manually. Amalthea is inactive and their bot has went down maybe three times before this too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Module:RFX report can be extended with a function to return the number of filed requests for {{RfA watchlist notice}} to use. (I imagine some scheduled purging would be needed.) isaacl (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote some hypothetical code that might work in the sandbox (diff), although idk how to quickly test without an actual live RfA. For purging, User:ProcBot/PurgeList can probably take care of that part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Ha!

That quote from a recent edit summary truly made my day. I mean, the whole page did, but especially that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought it fit the tone of the page well :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to amend XRV closure

Greetings TonyBallioni. I am appealing directly to your good sense and judgement (always better in hindsight) to request that you amend your Bold/IAR closure of this Administrative action review. The basis of my direct appeal is three fold, as follows:
1.) Because best practice requires that I begin any endeavor to challenge a formal closure by attempting first to resolve the matter on the talk page of the person who performed the closure, and:
2.) Because I desire redress and hope to achieve satisfaction without having to advance a formal challenge at wp:an, and:
3.) Most importantly, because I believe that we can resolve this matter without compulsory need if we remain collegial with Wikipedia's best interest as our core motivation. This, necessarily, means that I am approaching you, in appeal, with a willing mindset to accept your rebuttal if the rationale proves to be sufficiently compelling.
Before enumerating specific grounds, I like to simply ask, less formally, that you either reclose the discussion yourself, based only on your evaluation of the discussion being closed in accordance with the spirit of XRV purpose, without injecting any involved opinion, and without any predisposition or external influence, or, if you can not do the former in good faith, reopen the discussion and allow another uninvolved admin to perform the closure. Are either of these something that you would be willing to do? Because doing either would completely resolve the matter regarding my dissatisfaction of the original closure. I am keen to see your reply, and remain in respect for you.--John Cline (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my close as being in line with consensus, policy, and Wikipedia practice, and I requested review of it at AN, where those who have commented thus far have endorsed it and the initiatar of the thread agreed that the closure was in the best interests of the project and also agreed with my assessment that the correct venue to be take was ANI, not XRV at that time. As this is already at a community review board, it has already received comments from multiple editors endorsing it, and the person who initiated it has said they agree with the close, I do not believe there is cause to reclose it at this time. If you disagree with it, you are free to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Self-requested_review_of_my_WP:XRV_close and add your opinion to the editors who have already commented there.

On the "involved" point that you're hinting at: I don't think my thinking that the board not working well/it was a bad idea makes me involved to close individual discussions on it even if that closure effectively amounts to this is clearly not what the community authorized in the RfC and there is talk page consensus that I agree with that this forum is not ready to be active. Yes, I'm pre-disposed to think that, but typically I stay out of things where I would be acting in a way that went against consensus. In my reading, there's a fairly unambigious consensus on the talk page that the page is not ready for prime time yet, and the way it was set up was not what was authorized by the RfC. Typically one is not barred from acting on a general consensus in specific cases even if one took part in the discussion.

As an example, if there was consensus at WT:AN that I or any other admin took part in that decided that complaints that were longer than 500 words should be closed procedurally, I wouldn't be acting in an involved manner to close said discussions even if I participated in them. If a discussion met these criteria, I'd be free to close it even if I was one of the more vocal people in that discussion. as XRV goes, the talk page consensus is pretty clear that its not really a great forum to refer people to, and its also clear that no one really knows what is supposed to be reviewed there and it is unclear what the scope is. I agree with those positions and have advocated for them, but it doesn't make me involved to close an unrelated discussion in line with that consensus. I wouldn't have closed a review of a block or deletion, as examples, because I think those are less clearly in line with the talk page consensus as being part of the problems of the page.

That being said, I'm aware of optics of someone who is skeptical closing it, which is why I posted at AN immediately after closing it. Letting others review ones work on a forum that has a wide audience is ideal, and it makes sure that my interpretation of what the community's sense was and what our existing practice would do is in line with what it actually is. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, for your thoughtful reply. I wish I had known of your self-requested request because I'm fairly certain I would never have taken this first step in challenge, if I had. Nevertheless, I was sincere in my desire and belief that we could resolve matters at this level. And, I am glad that while coming here blind to the other things, I was right about that. I will reply further to the above mentioned discussion but all matters that brought me to this page are now moot. I'll therefore disengage from here, satisfied, and wishing you the best.--John Cline (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I knew it came from a good place. I can come off grumpy on occasion (or more than that...) but I have no problem with people asking for my rationale in complicated cases especially, because I realize I'm not infallible and I also typically have a pretty thought out reason before I take a potentially controversial action. People of goodwill can and do disagree in good faith, and there's no reason not to discuss this. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) has an RFC you might be interested in

Hello TonyBallioni,

Given your early involvement in WP:BILATERAL, I wanted to point you towards a RfC on the topic of renaming bilateral relations articles. If you'd like to participate, please see the discussion page. Best, Pilaz (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MangoTareeface9

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MangoTareeface9 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Lowering protection of Bitfinex

Hi, I was wondering if you would be willing to reduce the protection on Bitfinex. It's currently at ECP, and it probably should be at semi-. The page was protected almost 4 years ago, and the article has not had very many edits to it in the past 2 years. Thanks! SWinxy (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi SWinxy, I see blocked sockpuppets who had extended confirmed editing it in December and October of 2021, so that suggests to me lowering protection to make it easier to edit isn't ideal. Looks like the lack of activity means that ECP is doing what it was intended to do. Pinging GeneralNotability since he blocked both accounts to see if I'm off my rocker. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The Expertwikiguy group appears to be a paid editing group based on behavior (though let's be honest, I think that a lot), and ECP at least inconveniences anyone trying to puff up the company (and I do see some sly removals of criticism in these two accounts' edits). Crypto as a whole, of course, is just a festering pit of spam and promo anyway, and ECP is good for slowing that down too. Rambling aside - agree with Tony here. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

OK! Both of you make good arguments for not reducing protection. SWinxy (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, crap, I feel wiki-old. That was one of the first sanctions placed under the crypto GS and it feels like yesterday and not four years ago. Also sad to see that at first glance it looks like it is still needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes

Modussiccandi

BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:CLCStudent

Hi, would you please categorize their socks?   — Jeff G. ツ 18:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Jeff G.: CLCStudent was blocked for abusive logged-out editing, so tagging anything would be a pretty bad CU policy violation. For what it's worth, the master's tag wasn't added by Tony either. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't remember tagging anything for them, but usually when I don't tag something there's a reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

YGM

YGM.. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Xaosflux, sorry, been real life busy. I'll get back to you later tonight or early tomorrow! TonyBallioni (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it's passed by now. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of useright

Hi Tony Ballioni, On August 11, 2019 you gave me new page reviewer rights. I am no longer interested in reviewing new pages, please could you remove my membership from the NPP group. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

blocked IPs

Hi Tony, sorry to disturb you. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, I'm taking long-distance trains multiple times a week, and the IPs from the wifi that you get on the trains are banned. Would you be able to do the trick for my account so I'm not affected by that so I can edit during these long journeys? Otherwise, I'll have to find less-productive ways to procrastinate :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there DrVogel. Tony's been a bit busy, but I happened to notice this request. I've granted you IPBE for six months. Please take a look at that page for expectations, although given your editing history you should probably not have a problem complying. If you need it renewed, let us know, or use the email address on the IPBE page. Risker (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Dr. Vogel (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, Tony,

I saw your name, on a list or a page history, and realized I hadn't seen your work in a few months. I hope the "busyness" of your off-line life isn't stressful and that you are getting your batteries recharged. I look forward to running into you around the project when life permits more of a return. Maybe you could spend more time doing "fun stuff" like you probably did when you started editing rather than the adminning work that makes you silently cry out "ARRRGHH!!". All the best, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz (also to Primefac and Risker for handling requests on my talk while I've been away.) Life is starting to slow down, so should have more time for the projects in the coming months. Appreciate the kind note and always good to know one's been missed :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes

Firefly • Sdrqaz

Ad Orientem

Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)